Concluding on William James's Psychology, the Briefer Course (1892). We briefly cover emotions and spend the bulk of our time on will.

Talking about emotions allows us to refresh on James's overall theory of mind: An organism's activity basically involves various signals coming in through the senses and going out to produce reaction. This chain can reach to a greater or lesser extent into consciousness: from a reflex (mindless) action at one extreme, which might be or simply start as an instinct, or might have once been a choice but then became a habit. An emotion is a physiological reaction that we then notice; this feeling of the physical change is the emotion. Attention (accompanied by memory) is the faculty that filters the confusion of the stream of experience into identifiable things. A voluntary action is one taken with a memory that such an action can be done (so it must have been done the first time by instinct, reflex, or chance) with a plan to produce the same effect.

This gives a partial picture of what "will" amounts to. It's not a single faculty, but a combination of different phenomena, mostly related to attention. You could consider every voluntary action to be "willed," but many such actions don't hold our attention more than a moment or are part of a habitual chain, such that they don't actually attract our attention unless something goes wrong. I might be thirsty and reach for the water in front of me while concentrating on something else. Did I "will" the action? Well, the only times we generally use that term is when there's some difficulty in the decision or the action: I reach for the water, but I'm very tired and have to overcome my tiredness to reach for it, as if the obstacle is saying "are you sure?" Or maybe the drink is whisky and I stop to think whether I’ve already had too much.

In short, these input-output chains can conflict, which then brings attention to bear, and when we do make a decision, that’s where the explicit “fiat” that we typically call “will” comes in (even though many more actions are voluntary and hence willed as opposed to against-your-will). James thinks that whichever idea is held in attention the longest tends to have causal efficacy. If my desire for the alcohol is great, then repeated acts of attention would be required to pull myself back from that desire and consider the idea that enough is enough. Insofar as we have to exert this kind of effort, that really feels like will.

With this picture established, we spend some time bickering about James’s stance regarding free will. He explicitly says that he’s not going to deal with that in this essay, that we can still talk about moral psychology with just the facts of temptation and effort as described above, and we can judge someone’s virtue from their apparent capacity to summon up such effort. As a scientist, James says that he’s committed to the idea that all actions have a physiological cause, yet he can distinguish phenomenologically between actions that seem like involuntary, reflex actions from ones that seem deliberative and voluntary. But are we really, metaphysically, free? The scientist must remain silent on this point, as metaphysics is outside the scope of science.

Comments

Does he discuss reflexes anywhere? For example, the idea about grasping – we have certain reflexes that pediatricians specifically test for in babies. One is a grasp. So the first grasp that happens is not from
Will. How does this fit in?

Great episode! Mark said that some of this reminded him of Nietzsche, and this quote here sums up what Dylan was getting at:

“How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. […] This is true politically too; one need only go through history. The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong.”

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.